ncp-mcp-server

add_load_balancer_target

Attach server instances to a load balancer by providing the load balancer instance number and a list of server instance numbers. Manages load balancer targets on Naver Cloud Platform.

Instructions

로드 밸런서에 타겟 서버를 추가합니다

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "loadBalancerInstanceNo": "<loadBalancerInstanceNo>",
      "serverInstanceNoList": "<serverInstanceNoList>"
    },
    "name": "add_load_balancer_target"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`serverInstanceNoList`	Yes	서버 인스턴스 번호 리스트
`loadBalancerInstanceNo`	Yes	로드 밸런서 인스턴스 번호

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as mutation effects, permissions required, idempotency, or failure modes. For a state-changing operation, this lack of transparency is a gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action verb. It is perfectly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is a simple mutation with two parameters and no output schema, but without annotations the description should provide context such as prerequisites, idempotency, or what happens if the target already exists. It does none of this, leaving the agent underinformed for a state-changing operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters already described in the schema. The description adds little beyond restating that it adds target servers; it does not clarify relationships or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'adds' (추가합니다) and identifies the resource 'target server to the load balancer' (로드 밸런서에 타겟 서버). It clearly states the action, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like create_load_balancer.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It is a bare action statement without context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.